3 ms·

I don't think anyone is opposed to having a high-speed rail line. What people are opposed to is the insane cost, the schedule delays, and the poor output. If yo

I don't think anyone is opposed to having a high-speed rail line. What people are opposed to is the insane cost, the schedule delays, and the poor output. If you compared this to high speed rail in Japan or China - it would come out looking horrible for California on every meaningful metric. Regarding your point about Rome - I'm not an expert, but I'd bet the aqueducts provide a valuable service. What are your estimates for how many passengers would need to ride the rail in order to make it worthwhile, and your estimates for how long it would take to serve that many passengers? Think about the huge amounts of money and the value of the rail (delayed by when you could get that value) and then compare that to other ways you could use that money - for example by leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers.

olliej 9y ago
It’s important to remember that it is much easier to get property to build on in other countries. In China (which you cite) you don’t get a choice at all - your property is sold for whatever amount the appropriate gov agency believes it is worth. The article says buying land for the track is a significant problem - I will happily bet that they are not paying the pre-rail market value of that land.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Actually, it’s not as bad as you think. The Shanghai-Beijing line had a final budget of around $35bn for an 810-mile service. California is looking to spend $78bn for a 520-mile service. That means a cost-per-mile of $150m for California vs. $43m for China - in other words, California’s system is around 3.5 times as expensive as China’s. Honestly, given the difference in land values and regulation, that doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  There are three problems with your analysis. 1. You're comparing the final cost of the Shanghai-Beijing line to the current baseline estimate of a nascent project that has dramatically increased cost projections already. The high end estimate for the project is 100 billion, and I'd bet they find a way to exceed that if they ever finish. 2. Land values is not the only source of the difference. The 2018 California High Speed Rail authority business plan estimates the land costs at 15 billion. Even if land were free the project would be about twice as expensive as China's longer rail line. 3. You are assuming that because the differences are explained they are acceptable. "More regulation and higher land value - okay, we can spend four times as much per mile.". But that neglects comparing the actual usefulness of the project. How many people, over what time frame, would need to ride the line to make it worthwhile? High speed rail may make sense in China where it can be done cheaply. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do it in California where it's more expensive.
- omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago
  It's actually better than that. The Shanghai-Beijing line cost ~$40 billion in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates for the California line are in year of expenditure dollars, which means the $78+ billion is amounts that are spent from 2008 until completion in 2033. The dollars spent early in the project cost more because of inflation, and along the same lines, the dollars spent later in the project cost less because of inflation. For instance, if we spend half of the $80 billion in the last 5 years of the project, that's something like $30 billion in 2018 dollars even though it's $40 billion in 2028 to 2033 dollars.

olliej 9y ago

It’s important to remember that it is much easier to get property to build on in other countries. In China (which you cite) you don’t get a choice at all - your property is sold for whatever amount the appropriate gov agency believes it is worth. The article says buying land for the track is a significant problem - I will happily bet that they are not paying the pre-rail market value of that land.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

Actually, it’s not as bad as you think. The Shanghai-Beijing line had a final budget of around $35bn for an 810-mile service. California is looking to spend $78bn for a 520-mile service. That means a cost-per-mile of $150m for California vs. $43m for China - in other words, California’s system is around 3.5 times as expensive as China’s. Honestly, given the difference in land values and regulation, that doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
There are three problems with your analysis. 1. You're comparing the final cost of the Shanghai-Beijing line to the current baseline estimate of a nascent project that has dramatically increased cost projections already. The high end estimate for the project is 100 billion, and I'd bet they find a way to exceed that if they ever finish. 2. Land values is not the only source of the difference. The 2018 California High Speed Rail authority business plan estimates the land costs at 15 billion. Even if land were free the project would be about twice as expensive as China's longer rail line. 3. You are assuming that because the differences are explained they are acceptable. "More regulation and higher land value - okay, we can spend four times as much per mile.". But that neglects comparing the actual usefulness of the project. How many people, over what time frame, would need to ride the line to make it worthwhile? High speed rail may make sense in China where it can be done cheaply. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do it in California where it's more expensive.
omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago
It's actually better than that. The Shanghai-Beijing line cost ~$40 billion in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates for the California line are in year of expenditure dollars, which means the $78+ billion is amounts that are spent from 2008 until completion in 2033. The dollars spent early in the project cost more because of inflation, and along the same lines, the dollars spent later in the project cost less because of inflation. For instance, if we spend half of the $80 billion in the last 5 years of the project, that's something like $30 billion in 2018 dollars even though it's $40 billion in 2028 to 2033 dollars.